← the whole picture
Years before either county voted on anything, the state exempted the buyer's equipment from sales tax and now they're stalling the one bill that might slow these projects down. The receipts are on this page.
General Statute 105-164.13(55a) exempts qualifying data centers from sales tax on their electricity and on their support equipment: the substations, generators, transformers, battery backups, and chillers that make up most of what these projects actually buy.
You may have heard this got repealed in the 2026 budget. Here's the part that's true: the budget repealed the exemption on electricity. Here's the part that is still exempt: the equipment and the software, which are still on the books. By the legislature's own fiscal math, the repeal recovers about $21 million a year. The state's Commerce analysts say the full exemption table could reach $450 million a year if every planned data center gets built. At the signing, Governor Stein said "you and I will no longer be subsidizing their energy consumption." True, for about 5 percent of the money. To be fair, he has since proposed phasing out the rest by 2033. That would take the legislature, and the legislature hasn't moved.
You can read the repeal provision yourself: it's Section 44.4 in the 2026 budget browser, and the link opens straight to it.
Sources: G.S. 105-164.13, the exemption statute · 2026 budget Section 44.4, the electricity repeal · WUNC on the rollback and the $21.4M Fiscal Research estimate (May 2026) · NC Newsroom on the exemptions and the Commerce Department's ~$450M projection (May 2026) · Gov. Stein's signing remarks, Carolina Public Press (June 2026) · Stein's proposal to phase out the remaining incentives by 2033, WUNC (June 2026)
There is a bill. Senate Bill 730, the Ratepayer Protection Act, passed the House 69 to 44 on June 3, and its first part contains genuinely good provisions: real protections to keep customers over 100 megawatts from shifting their costs onto everyone else. Credit where due. Then it went to Senate Rules, which is where bills go to sit quietly, and it's been sitting since.
Now the fine print. When this bill wants teeth, it has them: the section banning foreign adversaries from owning data centers carries fines of $1,000 a day and court-ordered sale of the land. The ratepayer sections don't get that treatment. The contract terms are required, but they're written as goals, "designed to" protect other customers, with no penalty attached. The site study a county collects doesn't have to pass any standard; it just has to exist. And the check on whether a data center's promised demand ever shows up is a few lines in a utility report. Good provisions, light enforcement.
Then Section 10. It says no dispatchable power plant over 100 megawatts can retire until a 1,000 megawatt nuclear facility is certified in the state. Duke's actual nuclear plan is 600 megawatts of small modular reactors, first unit hoped for 2036, at a site it is already permitting next door to Belews Creek. Nothing on the drawing board meets the bar. As written, the Ratepayer Protection Act keeps the coal plant running. Who benefits from that mismatch?
Two more holes. The protections kick in at 100 megawatts, so a project designed at 99 escapes entirely. And anything approved before the bill becomes law is grandfathered outside its protections... which means both local projects are, right now, racing the bill. Every week it sits in Rules is a week the race stays winnable.
What should the state do instead? That's stop 6 of this guide: six proposals, with receipts from states already doing them.
Sources: SB 730 bill page: full text (Fifth Edition), history, and the June 3 House roll call · Section 10 text, p. 11 · Duke's early site permit application: 600 MW of SMRs near Belews Creek, first unit target 2036 (Dec 2025) · NRC docket for the Belews Creek site